I've noticed a pattern recently of people opening issues for or actually writing "micro-RFCs" for adding a method to
std, and getting responses that they could just open a PR to rust-lang/rust instead for something that small.
When I saw this happen yesterday (on https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/2809) it occurred to me that our official documentation on what requires an RFC might be contributing to this, so I re-read some of it:
What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on community norms and varies depending on what part of the ecosystem you are proposing to change, but may include the following.
- Additions to
For instance new APIs almost certainly merit an RFC.
Submit an RFC if the change is a:
- New API
Maybe we should update some of these documents to make an explicit distinction between "small" new APIs that are better as a PR and "large" ones that need an RFC?